Mailbag
With each passing week in this crazy season comes more and more email to my inbox. Keep it coming. As always, I make a point to respond to everyone through email or on the site. I will never use anyone's full name on BON unless explicitly authorized.
Lost in all the kerfluffle about what happens in this three team tiebreaker is the fact that Oklahoma's defense has kind of sucked this year. Do you have any reason for why we should even think Oklahoma will succeed in stopping Texas Tech?
--Emma R.
First and foremost--a hat tip for using the word 'kerfluffle'. I approve. As to your question, I'll have much more on this game on Wednesday, but let's lay out some of the relevant numbers, comparing Oklahoma's defensive performance since the Texas game against Texas Tech's performance thus far in six conference games. As is mandatory when discussing the Big 12, we include rate statistics for context. (Note, too, that these stats are for offensive points only; special teams and defense-created scores have been omitted from the points-per-play calculations.)
| OPP | Rush Yds | Yds/Att | Pass Yds | Yds/Att | Total Yds/Play | Points/Play |
| Texas | 161 | 4.6 | 277 | 7.9 | 6.3 | .54 |
| Kansas | 134 | 4.5 | 357 | 8.5 | 6.8 | .43 |
| K State | 64 | 2.0 | 486 | 9.3 | 6.5 | .42 |
| Nebraska | 204 | 5.8 | 214 | 7.6 | 6.6 | .44 |
| A&M | 26 | 0.9 | 252 | 4.9 | 3.5 | .26 |
| Tech B12 | 123 | 4.7 | 439 | 8.9 | 7.4 | .63 |
This is only half the equation (Tech's D versus OU's offense being the other half), but the short answer to your question is: No, there's not much here to suggest Oklahoma's defense is going to smother Tech's offense. If we grant that Tech's offense is at least as good--and probably the best--of all the above, there's not much in OU's performance record to suggest they're going to keep Tech from moving the ball and putting points on the board.
Your buddy Dr. Saturday thinks Oklahoma controls its own destiny. Agree or disagree?
--L.S.
I already spoke to this yesterday, and I'd recommend BZ's outstanding post on how this will break down, as well, but I'll address this here to make a emphasize a couple points:
- My hypothesis is that week-to-week voting is different from Final Ballots. A voter who has been voting OU over Texas without much thought is more likely to think it through very carefully before doing so again in the final ballot.
- Texas beat Missouri. Oklahoma and Tech did not.
- Location of Big Victory/Loss favors Texas.
- If Dr. Saturday (and AW, who speculated similarly) may be proven right that two Oklahoma wins will lead to them finishing atop the scrum, the early returns are more measured. See here and here. I think my theory is at least as plausible as the alternative.
There's this assumption out there that (1) voters are dumb and (2) Texas will get screwed because OU is gonna be the team that picked up big wins last. Maybe, but it certainly looked like the voters were going to goof and send Cal to the BCS over Texas in 2004 before Mack "whined" about, for example, some idiot who had Texas ranked #9 on his ballot. Look, if we get into a three-way tiebreaker scenario, Texas fans and PR machine can get to work on making the case for the Longhorns. It's a sound case, and there's no reason (yet) to assume we'll lose the debate.
You said last week that your dream match up (assuming no Miami) was Texas in the Rose Bowl to face USC. If you're right that Texas can't go to the Rose Bowl any more, what is your new dream match up if not Miami?
--Eric S.
How about Texas versus USC in the Fiesta Bowl? If Oregon State and Texas Tech win out, there's your Fiesta Bowl.
Don't know if you saw this article [on Texas consider ing an all-Longhorn cable channel]. Thought it might make an interesting post.
--Michael S.
It's something to discuss in the offseason, for sure. It makes a lot of sense for a number of reasons; for now, I'll just note that former BON contributor TR predicted this back in 2004. I'll look during the offseason for the email exchange we had about it. I'll say this, though: I fully expect it to happen.
Maybe you can answer a question for me. I was at the game UT-BU game on Saturday but did not have a radio to hear anything other than the PA announcer.Texas lined up for what turned out to be their second missed field goal of the game. The line of scrimmage was about the Baylor 7, so if you add the 7 or 8 yards for the kick spot, Baylor should have gotten the ball at the 14 or 15, right? When they went to the 5,000th, interminable commercial break, the ball was lined up at the Baylor 20 yard line. There were no penalties on the play and the kick was not blocked by Baylor. (I think this kick is the one that clanged off the upright.)Is there a difference in spotting the ball after a missed kick when you're inside the opponent's 20? If so has that changed recenty, or has that always been the rule? Or did the officials screw up (not that it affected the outcome by any means)?--Andy B.
Rule 8-4-2-b (full PDF of rules here) reads that after an unsuccessful field goal attempt: "If the previous spot was between Team B's 20-yard line and the goal line, the ball shall next be put in play at Team B's 20-yard line."
That's not a new rule for 2008, but it may be fairly recent. Either way, the call was correct.
0 recs |
26 comments
Comments
Holy crap.
I had no idea that rule about missed field goals inside the 20 existed. I’m trying to think of a conceivable explanation for why that’s a good rule and I can’t come up with one. Anyone?
by billyzane on Nov 10, 2008 3:58 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Was put into place in the last 5 years.
I believe they are looking at it as being like a punt that went through the end zone (touchback).
by Horncasting on Nov 10, 2008 4:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think the concept was
to encourage going for touchdowns rather than FGs, with the kicking team “punished” by going on defense at the 20 if the kick was no good.
I have never understood why more coaches don’t try fourth-and-short scrimmage plays from inside the 10. If you make the play, you’re way into TD territory. If you fail, you go on defense inside the 10. Either way, your opponent is under max pressure.
by edsp on Nov 10, 2008 4:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I know that in the 70's all missed field goals went to the 20.
At that time it was changed to the line of scrimmage so that you would not have a team try a 70 yard FG just to ostensibly punt. It is possible that the 20 is a vestige of that time?
by billb on Nov 10, 2008 4:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
old, old rule...
Way back in the day, ALL missed field goal attempts went to the 20. The change was to spot the ball differently on tries from outside the 20. I think the reason it felt so new is that so few field goals are missed from inside the 20…
by Pflash on Nov 11, 2008 9:14 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
So what’s the logic behind keeping the rule for field goals inside the 20? I understand why they changed it to the spot of the ball for FGs outside the 20, but why not also for those inside the 20? I guess they just thought they were correcting the problem of teams using a really long FG attempt as an outside shot at points and then, if the try was missed, as an effective punt. And since that’s not a problem for FG attempts inside the 20, they just didn’t change it.
But I still think it’s a bad rule, even if there’s a logical (and anachronistic) reason for it to exist.
by billyzane on Nov 11, 2008 10:07 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Grammer police
Although I also highly approve of the proliferation of the word, it is in fact “kerfuffle”, with one less “l” than used above. Kerfluffle sounds more like something that happens in a porn actor’s dressing room.
by littlevisigoth on Nov 10, 2008 4:07 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Grammar police
Grammar is not spelled “grammer.”
by billyzane on Nov 10, 2008 4:10 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Pwned
And watch someone call me out for spelling that with a “p”.
by TheElusiveShadow on Nov 10, 2008 4:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Ouch
After I wrote that, I double checked to see if I screwed anything up in the post, but didn’t bother to look at the title. I’ll take a seat.
I mostly wanted to make the fluff joke.
by littlevisigoth on Nov 10, 2008 4:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Correction #2
It’s a bit of slang that’s commonly spelled both ways. I actually checked before going with the emailer’s spelling.
--PB--
by Peter Bean on Nov 10, 2008 4:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
double-Ouch
I’ll just keep my mouth shut next time. I’d only ever heard it without the “L”, so I checked good ol’ Merrium Webster and they didn’t show any alternate spellings, so I gave myself the green light on the fluff joke, which apparently wasn’t funny at all.
For fear of being branded an asshole, I’ll take this opportunity to compliment your writing as a whole. So… back to shutting up and reading.
by littlevisigoth on Nov 10, 2008 5:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
don't mean to pile on
But it’s Merriam-Webster.
But I’ll pretend you did that on purpose, ironing irony style.
by jc25 on Nov 10, 2008 5:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Shit
I even went to the damn website to see if I spelled it right, and I still fucked it up. Just for added perspective, there are two people at my company that all they do is write shit, so people like me don’t have to. I write a draft, they format it, check it for errors, and otherwise act as a buffer between number crunchers like me and the client. (if only BON had such paid staff).
And yes, lesson learned. Next time I’ll just say, “I too approve of that word, but I’ve only heard it as kerfuffle… kerfluffle sounds like something that happens in a porn actor’s dressing room ” and leave any insinuation of grammar correction completely out of it.
Hopefully if nothing else, brow-beating the engineer allowed you all to stop obsessing about BCS rankings and “what if” scenarios.
So… how ’bout that Kansas game?
by littlevisigoth on Nov 10, 2008 6:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Correction #3
Also, your statement should read one fewer “L,” rather than one less “L.”
by BrooklynHorn on Nov 10, 2008 5:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Okay
I get it. For full disclosure, I’m an engineer. Can I at least get credit for knowing the word kerfuffle?
by littlevisigoth on Nov 10, 2008 5:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh and just for chuckles...
Its “Merriam Webster”… not “Merrium”. I am a liberal arts grad and could not resist. Y’all have a great night. Oh and the fluff joke was funny. :-)
1 Peter 2:17
by HornsFan87 on Nov 10, 2008 5:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yep... good catch.nt
1 Peter 2:17
by HornsFan87 on Nov 11, 2008 11:04 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
This little exchange is freaking hilarious.
If you are going to criticize anyone on this board, you better come correct!
by ctex80 on Nov 10, 2008 6:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
USC as the new "Miami"
I read today that USC, especially on defense, has adopted the dirty play that Miami was once famous for. The article said USC didn’t mind a 15-yard penalty if they could intimidate the other team? Tow questions: Have you seen enough of USC this year to have an opinion of whether this is true? And, would the 2008 Horns handle such intimidation tactics better than they did in the Cotton Bowl against Miami several years ago?
"Only angry people win football games." --DKR
by OBdoc on Nov 10, 2008 5:54 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
In keeping with the thread...
We threw “tow” intimidation plays at Baylor on Saturday. Not sure if they worked in our favor. Those things can fire a team up and have to be timed just right. Probably works best when a team is behind in a close game.
But, if true, I don’t doubt that Carroll endorses. He is a real piece. His current rant about where they are in the rankings is especially pleasing to witness. Talk about on the outside looking in. This is very pleasing to watch.
by TXStampede on Nov 10, 2008 6:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
























